Effect of a genomic classifier on adjuvant radiation recommendations after prostate cancer surgery.
Bibliographic record
Abstract
151 Background: Clinical guidelines recommend adjuvant radiation therapy (ART) after radical prostatectomy in men with adverse pathological features. Practice patterns vary on use of ART. This prospective, multi-center study examines the effect of a genomic classifier (GC) on ART recommendations post-prostatectomy. Methods: A prospective, pre-post tumor-board–like survey was conducted to assess urologists’ treatment recommendations for ART as part of a clinical utility study; results are from a pre-specified interim analysis of 11 unique de-identified cases with adverse pathology. All case histories were based on patients treated by at least one of the urologists participating in the study. Patient age, pathological features, and preoperative prostate-specific antigen were presented to the respondents. Presentation of cases was randomized to minimize recall bias. For each case history, physician respondents first were asked to render an ART recommendation without knowledge of the GC findings (pre-GC); they were then asked to render an ART recommendation after GC findings were provided for the same cases (post-GC). Recommendations were made without knowledge of others’ responses. Results: Twelve urologists at 11 US institutions provided 132 adjuvant therapy recommendations. Pre-GC, ART was recommended in 56 (42%) cases. Thirty three percent (95% CI: 25-41%) of recommendations changed following review of GC results. Among pre-GC recommendations for ART, 39% (95% CI: 27-53%; n=22) changed to observation and among pre-GC recommendations for observation, 8% (95% CI: 3%-17%; n=5) changed to ART. Compared to observation, ART was 11.8 times (odds ratio 95% CI: 2.9 - 46.3) more likely to be recommended for cases with high risk GC scores. Adjuvant therapy recommendations were more strongly influenced by GC score (p=0.0006) than any clinical variable (all p>0.33) when both informed recommendations. Conclusions: Additional knowledge of the tumor’s genomic characteristics, as assessed by GC, results in a statistically significant and clinically meaningful change in treatment recommendations in patients indicated for adjuvant radiation therapy by current clinical guidelines.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.013 | 0.082 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.000 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.000 | 0.000 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Research integrity | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".